Mental Ward

Blog archive

Quick Migration: Not Quick Enough?

Blip.tv has a graphic demonstration of what you could be in for with Microsoft's Hyper-V in terms of Quick Migration. In Microsoft's world, Quick Migration means that when you move a VM from one physical server to another, it happens almost -- but not quite -- instantly, with minimal downtime. In fact, the VM does go offline, if only for a short time. On the other hand, VMware's Live Migration (in its ESX and ESXi) is an instantaneous transfer, with no downtime, loss of data, state information, and so on.

Now, the first thing to note about this video is the source -- it's from "VMware TV." That will give you a clue, from the outset, that this might be a setup for failure.

With that caveat in mind, it's a fascinating demo. It shows a Quick Migration of a Windows Server 2003 VM from one physical machine to another. At the same time, a Microsoft Dynamics client is trying to access a database residing on the VM. Through a constant ping of the VM, we can see how a) the connection to the VM is dropped for a time, and b) how the Dynamics client fails in its attempt to get the database information (an error box pops up, showing a TCP failure). Shortly thereafter, another popup informs us that the VM has actually been deleted! It's re-started a few moments later. In addition, a network file copy that was initiated on the VM also failed during the Quick Migration.

The video is, naturally, a worst-case scenario, but from what I saw, it could (and will) happen sometimes. The question for those considering Hyper-V is whether these types of interruptions would happen often enough to impact your business. After all, the Dynamics client will retrieve the information after the migration is done, so it's not like you'll never be able to access it (after the user re-initiates, though. That's an aggravation). Same with the file copy; just re-start the copy after the VM restarts. You won't have to wait a day, an hour, or even five minutes to do the task; but you will have to start it all over again.

My assignment/question to you: watch the demo, and tell me what you think. Does this impact your thinking on the validity of Hyper-V in your environment? Why or why not? I'll post your feedback, unless you specifically ask me not to.

Posted by Keith Ward on 04/20/2008 at 10:27 AM


Reader Comments:

Fri, Apr 25, 2008

If you can move a running server with no down time, you can do maintenance on hardware during the week and daylight hours and not need notify anybody. I have too many things to do on the weekends. If Microsoft can get it to work that way once the final product comes out then VMware will have competition in a production environment. I have nothing against Microsoft, I just know what I need in a product. I will sure evaluate Microsoft’s Hyper-V once it is out, but it would take a lot for me to make the move.

Thu, Apr 24, 2008

I have viewed a lot of this type of marketing and am somewhat sickened by the innuendo these marketers use. I guess it is effective, but it is VERY annoying to those who know better.

In this particular case, I must say that I do know that this will occur, but anyone who has administered a Virtual (or physical environment for that matter) knows that these moves occur when user's are not using the system and are almost always well publicized - JUST IN CASE. If you are more worried about moving your systems in real time during use, then you are in a clustered environment w/ storage virtualization where you can takedown VM's and move them with the cluster managing and redirecting the information anyway.

For VMWare, this may not be REQUIRED, but any administrator who values their job would run the servers this way, so who cares about a miniscule time blip between servers. And yes, just for the record, I do use VMWare products, but not because Server 2008 has a short downtime when using Hyper-V. That is just absurd.

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 Keith Ward

Steven, yes, Hyper-V is not yet finished. But the first commercial version will have Quick Migration, so the same problem will exist. Microsoft is talking about Live Migration-type functionality with the R2 release of Windows Server 2008.

Wed, Apr 23, 2008 Steven Vallarian

As I understand it, Quick Migration is not a finished released product, so isn't it a little early for VMware's marketing team to be posting this type of comparisons?

Wed, Apr 23, 2008

The Quick Migration of Hyper-V is not sufficient for production use in my mind. As you pointed out the client can recover by reinitiating the application request. The problem is that the whole concept of a virtual infrastructure is to make best use of your servers by dyanamically balancing load, improving SLA's and providing high availability. Doing so will insure phyical infrastructure response times will be balanced.

VMWares Distributed Resource Scheduler leverages VMotion for live migrations of VM's to balance workloads across the physical infrastructure. So if a VM requires a spike in CPU or Memory it get's it and other VM's can be live migrated off the physical server and on other servers with available capacity. With no intervention by the administration team.

Additionally when it's time to patch the host in VMware you can live migrate all VM's off, patch it and redistribute the workload.

In Hyper-V this will be disruptive and based on history could be a monthly headache which the administration team needs to contend with.

So, yes live migration is a cornerstone to a virtual infrastructure for any infrastructure.

Thanks for opening the discussion.

Add Your Comment:

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above